BW, you are not alone. Last weekend I had to fulfill my obligations to Keanu, but I fully intend to see this soon if it's playing locally, and I promise to report. It's going to be on the strange side, but very interesting, I'm certain.

Oh, dirac, thank you - I feel so much better now! Really... after hearing that interview last night, I'm even more interested in seeing this film. Right now it's in NYC at The Film Forum... I doubt it will make it out to the hinterlands of Westchester County, NY... though there is an art film place up in Pleasantville. Maybe they'll show a Guy Maddin film?

I lost some motivation to see it after I heard Maddin on Fresh Air fess up to his lack of familiarity with concepts of seeing dance as dance. :eek: I'm still a little intrigured, but finding a time to see it isn't a big priority.

Yes, I heard him admit to that too, carbo... And he admitted to filming the dancers from odd, oft times, unusual angles - nevertheless, for those of us who are old time Dracula fans, it still holds its allure. ;)

I found the concept of ballet being related to silent film and the use of black and white photography...with hand painted splashes of red for, well, you know...and green and gold for money to be rather intriquing, myself.

And then there is the thought that this film just might entice the uninitiated into attending a real, live, ballet performance or two.

Although I have not seen his other films, yet, I have heard of them. If you haven't checked out the Zeitgeist Film site, you might enjoy checking out the "photo gallery" from Maddin's "Dracula" film. Kind of brings back memories of Peter Lorre lurking about... ;) Actually, there are one or two good dance shots.

This movie snuck into Motown for one day, at the Detroit Film Theater, an auditorium that is literally an "art house"--it is in the basement of the Detroit Institue of Arts. Which means it might plays for a week at one of the theaters that show independent movies sometime this year.

The local reviewer wrote that the real stars are not the dancers, but the constantly moving cameras.

I finally caught it and then never got around to posting, so I’m finally reporting to say that although this movie will be a very strange experience to those unfamiliar with the Guy Maddin M.O., it’s definitely worth your time. It won’t take you long – the movie is not much more than an hour. Although Maddin uses sound, he employs various techniques (old film stock, iris shots, double/triple exposure, animation, tinting, melodramatic titles, etc.) -- buffs may feel at times that Maddin is channeling Murnau) to emulate the visual texture of silent films. This is in black-and-white, with occasional use of red – for blood, natch – and green. As mentioned above, this is not your straightforward film-of-a- ballet. You do see some good dancing, but if you are interested in the movie primarily for that you may be dissatisfied as it’s difficult to get much sense of the choreography (although the dancing is highly effective within the movie’s own terms). However, this looks like a good, serious Dracula.

In this telling, and I’m simplifying hugely, Van Helsing and Lucy’s suitors are the true villains, willing to kill Lucy (Tara Birtwhistle, terrific) and Mina (Cindy Marie Small) in order to save them. Dracula (Zhang Wei-Qiang) is a surprisingly youthful, sympathetic vampire. The first half of the movie, ending with the demise of Lucy, is the best – dance and drama fall off after that, until the finale. If Maddin and the Royal Winnipeg Ballet are anything to go by, Winnipeg is in fine shape, culturally speaking.

Actually, BW, Maddin's entire oeuvre is a cult classic. However, name actors are now appearing in his movies, so I have hopes that one day he will exercise a broader appeal.